BIM ThinkSpace

Episode 16: Understanding BIM Wash

2011-06-06T00:29:56+10:00

BIM Wash^[1] is a term describing the inflated – and sometimes deceptive – claim of using or delivering Building Information Modelling products or services. An organization which commits BIM Wash is typically engaged in promoting its unwarranted claims of BIM capability through its staff, website, project submissions and/or marketing material. Like Green Wash before it, BIM Wash is on the rise in markets with value attributed to BIM tools and workflows, and where clients are increasingly requiring models to be part of project submittals.

Some of the BIM Wash (BIMwash, as a newly coined single term) activity can be attributed to the confusion surrounding the BIM term itself; unintentional and even harmless to a degree. Other activities, however, are more intentionally deceptive. This is certainly true for the many attempts to sell BIM services which have not been developed yet, or fall far short of clients’ expectations.

BIMwash is not only problematic for clients who engage service providers (architects, engineers, contractors,…) falsely posing as BIM experts, it is also problematic for the service providers themselves. By muddying the waters, BIMwashers can cause significant grief to those who have invested a lot of time, money and effort in developing their true BIM capabilities and in honing their BIM deliverables.

Defining BIMwash

The term BIMwash is derived from Whitewash, “a cheap white paint or coating of chalked lime used to quickly give a uniform clean appearance to a wide variety of surfaces”. Metaphorically, to whitewash means to “gloss over or cover up vices, crimes or scandals or to exonerate by means of […] biased presentation of data” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2003).

In essence, BIMwash is the attempt to hide imperfections (BIM Incompetency), while at the same time, promoting an inaccurate view of one’s BIM capability or credentials. Using a more measureable definition, BIMwash is when:

BIM Claim^[2] > BIM Competency^[3]

That is, BIMwash exists when an individual, organization or project team’s BIM Claim is significantly higher than its actual BIM Competency to deliver on these claims^[4]. This formula signifies that, in order to accurately measure BIMwash, BIM Competency must first be understood and measured.

Understanding BIM Competency

As a term, BIM Competency refers to a wide set of BIM deliverables and their respective requirements. Being BIM-Competent is a label that can be applied at different scales: to individuals (architects, engineers, project managers, etc…), to organizations and to project teams:

A BIM-Competent Individual is someone who has adequate BIM skill, knowledge and experience. A BIM-Competent engineer (for example) will, not only generate a data-rich 3D model using Revit, DP or Tekla, but can do it in a timely manner and according to a high delivery standard.

A BIM-Competent Organization^[5] is the one that has consistently delivered (not can deliver^[6]) a set of high-quality BIM products and services. It not only harbours the necessary BIM-Competent individuals but surrounds them with adequate systems, standards and due support.

A BIM-Competent Project Team is a group of organizations which – in addition to being individually competent – have gained (note the use of past tense here) the necessary experience to jointly deliver a set of BIM services/products through common standards, collaborative systems and optimized workflows.

Using the above organizational ‘scales’, let’s briefly explore how two typical, Unwarranted BIM Claims – or BIMwash - take shape.

Individual BIMwash

Unwarranted BIM Competency claims by individuals are prevalent during the process of recruitment. Individuals seeking employment within organizations those requiring some sort of BIM Competency – may claim that they have excellent BIM ‘skills’ or significant BIM experience. These claims are found in submitted résumés, promoted by recruitment agencies, or heard ad nauseam within the confines of interview rooms. Such claims may then prove to be true or - more often than not – prove to be awash with fluff and inaccuracies. Those project leaders who were on the receiving end of BIMwash can testify how a recruit – after claiming that s/he is BIM proficient during the recruitment process – turned out to be inefficient and even slowed down the whole team during a critical delivery phase^[7].

Organizational BIMwash

Organizations – and by extension, Project Teams^[8] - may claim specific BIM Competency in the hope of winning/satisfying clients or securing new partners or projects. These claims are specifically prevalent in marketing material (websites, presentations, capability statements, etc…) and within project submissions especially where the term ‘BIM’ has been loosely inserted by a major client into a tender request or similar. In countless cases, organizations who have publically promoted their ‘BIM Leadership’ or superior ‘BIM Capability’ have been shown to lack basic structures to deliver a reasonable-quality, BIM product^[9] or service^[10].

Other perpetrators of BIMwash

In addition to Service Providers^[11] - the typical culprits, BIMwash is also practiced by^[12]:

Software developers and their resellers who inflate the benefits of specific tools or claim that their product is ‘a comprehensive BIM solution’.

Clients/owners who demand a BIM product/service which they may not understand or – if delivered to them – do not have the internal capability to properly utilize and maintain.

BIMwash by consultants and advisors who inflate the effects of their services on the BIM implementation process.

The four levels of BIMwash

Not all BIMwash is of the same intensity. Mild forms of unwarranted BIM claims can be harmless to a degree while others can be malicious and severely disruptive. To help combat BIMwash, it is useful to identify its four different levels^[13]:

Level 1: CONFUSION or Unintentional BIMwash

This is when BIM processes and protocols are not understood or are perceived to be similar to CAD. It is when basic model exchanges are confused with model-based collaboration. It is when a Model Server is confused with a File Server or a Document Management System.

Those who have not yet understood the multilayered implications of BIM concepts may inadvertently confuse themselves, their clients and/or project partners (see Fig. 1 below):

Fig. 1. BIMwash Level 1, confusing X with Y

Level 2: INEXPERIENCE or Low-Level BIMwash

BIMwash caused by inexperience manifests itself when the link between a BIM deliverable and its requirements is not acknowledged or when only some BIM deliverables (the low-hanging fruit) and their requirements are understood. It is when basic BIM deliverables (like coordinated drawings or model-based clash detection) are promoted as cutting-edge innovations.

To the inexperienced, BIM is similar to an iceberg – only a small number of BIM requirements/deliverables are seen while most remain hidden below the surface (see Fig. 2). This inexperience, in the hands of a prematurely-enthusiastic marketing department, can spawn significant BIMwash.

Fig. 2. BIMwash Level 2, seeing SOME and missing MANY

Level 3: EXAGGERATION or Mid-Level BIMwash

This is when actual BIM Competencies exist but are intentionally promoted far beyond their actual level. This is similar to telling a true story yet adding several Hollywood special effects on top (Fig. 3).

One example of Exaggeration is when a national practice claims (through its BIM capability statement, website or blog) juicy BIM competencies which have only been partially achieved by a local team on a handful of projects.

Fig. 3. BIMwash Level 3, blowing things out of proportion

Level 4: ILLUSION or Severe BIMwash

This is when the BIM Competency story amounts to pure fiction. This is similar to a Bollywood movie plot - all song and dance, colourful, and possibly amusing - but the actual story was never, and may never be, true! It is when a pre-BIM service provider poses as highly BIM-competent, successfully bids-for and secures a large BIM-mandated project^[14]. Under the illusion of BIMwash, true capability and severe incompetency are indistinguishable.

Fig. 4. BIMwash Level 4, promoting what does not exist!

In Conclusion

BIMwash - like Greenwash^[15^] before it – is expected to proliferate within the market. This is mainly driven by an exploding number of large clients who demand BIM-centric delivery. With the absence of independent assessment/certification, BIMwash skews the construction market by making those with ‘creative BIM capability statements’ indistinguishable from those with hard-earned BIM competency. Understanding BIMwash is thus the first important step towards detecting it. In a future BIM Episode, I’ll describe a few approaches to combat and – in the long run - neutralize BIMwash.

[1] This blog post is an extension of the BIMwash handout distributed during RTC Australia, 2011. The topic will be covered in two or three posts depending on feedback received.

[2] BIM Claim is what an individual, organization or project team choses to publically identify as their extent of BIM competency.

[3] BIM Competency is a term that combines BIM capability and maturity. BIM Competency can be applied to individuals, organizations and project teams. This will be further explained later on.

[4] If BIM Claim < BIM Competency, then there is a missed marketing opportunity!

[5] This also applies to Organizational Units and Groups – smaller subsets within an Organization.

[6] There is an important distinction between BIM-Competent and BIM-Ready organizations. BIM-Ready organizations are those which have the capability to deliver a high-quality BIM product/service but have not yet gained the necessary experience.

[7] While individual BIM claims are quite easy to detect, provided the recruiter/interviewer is BIM-Competent, it is still common that organizations do not assess their inductees’ BIM Competency as rigorously as they should.

[8] Example: two or more organizations submitting a joint project bid or competition entry.

[9] Sample criteria: a well-coordinated object-based model, free of modelling errors, constructable, rich in necessary data, modelled at the right level of detail, optimized in size/performance, based on a consistent/standard naming structure, etc…

[10] Sample criteria: a well-structured BIM Execution Plan, facilitated by knowledgeable senior staff, well-aware of BIM’s strengths/limitations within applicable standards and contractual commitments, etc…

[11] AEC Service Providers refer to those who offer their design and construction services to clients: architects, engineers, contractors, project managers, etc…

[12] I have intentionally left out one international group actively promoting their BIM approach as the solution to near-all industry ailments…Can you identify that group?

[13] BIMwash levels are used as a Capability Maturity metric while BIMwash types are used when describing a mixture of BIMwash behaviours.

[14] This is a true example.

[15] Greenwash is the unwarranted claim of environmental credentials.

Episode 15: Initiating a Collaborative BIM Project

2011-02-02T01:03:59+11:00

A collaborative BIM project is not a simple undertaking. This is especially true if the project in question is a large facility (e.g. a high-rise building or a major hospital), the project participants lack the necessary experience, or the BIM requirements are not clearly defined. This episode will discuss three main criteria for the primary consultant, the project manager or the independent facilitator to consider when initiating a collaborative, model-based process.

INTRODUCTION

When a project team is engaged to jointly-deliver a BIM product/service, they’re actually being requested to coordinate their processes and to lower their exchange barriers. This is not too difficult a task provided the following criteria exist:

The BIM goals are clearly defined by the Client
Major project participants have an adequate level of BIM competency, well suited to meet the defined BIM goals
There is common willingness to collaborate and a clear understanding of how to exchange information and data

If the first criterion is missing, it is realistic to expect that the project will be an exercise in patience, compromise and outright inefficiency. However, if the Client happens to be well-informed of the BIM deliverables available to him/her, and the requirements for each of these deliverables, then the project’s brief can be clear and concise. Below is a summarized mind map of potential BIM deliverables organized according to Project Lifecycle Phases (refer to Episode 10):

Fig. 1. A summary of model-based deliverables (collapsed mind map, click to expand)

To satisfy the second criterion, the BIM capability of service providers [1] must match the Client’s defined goals. For example, if the Client (aka Owner) requires the delivery of a coordinated as-built model to tie into a facility management/maintenance system, then the relevant project participant must have that ability. If the Client expects the model to be used for offsite manufacturing (e.g. precast panelling or steel detailing), then the relevant project participant must be able [2] to deliver exactly that. Any mismatch between the Client’s BIM requirements and the BIM abilities of service providers is a gross inefficiency - an unnecessary cost incurred by the Client.

Even when the BIM goals are well-defined and the project participants are individually competent, a third criterion needs to be satisfied – common objectives and workflows. That is, for a Large Collaborative [3] BIM Project (LCBP) to be successfully initiated, the project team must be willing to communicate, to share risk, to modify processes, and to exchange knowledge. The project team must also know/learn how to work together: what to model (or not to model), what to exchange (or not to exchange) and when to exchange it. Reaching a common understanding of the most efficient modelling/sharing tools, processes and protocols is critical and cannot be overstated. This common understanding can be ad-hoc (issues resolved as they arise) or well-planned, executed and monitored. It goes without saying that a planned approach can be infinitely more efficient than ad-hoc practices especially if collaboration workflows are clearly mapped, reasonably comprehensive and well-tested.

A SAMPLE WORKFLOW

To provide a concrete example of a structured approach, below is a sample workflow representing the first ‘step’ towards initiating a Large Collaborative BIM Project:

Fig. 2. Collaborative BIM Project – Initiation Workflow STEP 1 (Larger Image)

The workflow pool above [4] depicts what a BIM Facilitator [5] may use to initiate a model-based collaboration effort. The workflow is subdivided into three lanes [6] and includes a set of events, tasks, data objects/stores, and gateways which describe a logical progression to clarify Client Goals, Establish BIM Competencies and Define Common Objectives and Workflows. While tasks (rounded rectangles) describe the main activities expected from the collaborating team, data objects linked to these tasks hold an extensive set of information which are either requirements (input objects) or deliverables (output objects). These data objects can take the form of guides, manuals, checklists or any other type of structured information that facilitates the sharing of knowledge and the exchange of data.

Workflows like the one depicted above vary according to organizational, contractual and market-specific conditions. However, they can be instrumental - even if generic and incomplete [7] - in clarifying objectives, defining incremental steps and, more generally, increasing the efficiency of a collaborative BIM project at its first and most critical phase.

IN SUMMARY

When a project team embarks on a model-based collaborative project, it is important to keep in mind the following key principles:

Planning is important for the successful completion of any construction project. It thus goes without saying that detailed early planning is critical for Large Collaborative BIM Projects (LCBPs)
LCBPs are, by definition, complex undertakings. This complexity must be reduced significantly if the benefits of BIM are to be maximized [8].
One excellent way of reducing complexity is through simplified diagrams, mind maps and visual workflows. Using a structured language (like BPMN) has its advantages; however, any type of clear graphical representation will do.

Finally, initiating large collaborative BIM projects can be excessively demanding with the absence of goal clarity, participant competency and agreed know-how. Clarifying the Client’s goals as early as possible, assessing/aligning the BIM competency of project participants, and the utilization/development of clear workflow plans can significantly reduce project complexity and increase its efficiency.

[1] The term Service Providers refers to architects, engineers, builders/contractors and sub-subcontractors while the term Project Participants refers to a wider set of BIM players including the client/owner, operator and project manager.

[2] To ensure that BIM service providers can actually deliver what they promise to deliver, a capability/maturity assessment is highly recommended (refer to BIM Episodes 11, 12 and 13).

[3] A collaborative BIM project assumes the exchange of data-rich models between at least two disciplines (refer to Episode 8 and 10)

[4] This visual workflow is based on Business Process Modelling Notation (BPMN) – a structured language suitable for process management and automation (Wikipedia link).

[5] A BIM Facilitator is a term describing a new emerging role different to that of the Model Manager. BIM Facilitators can either be internal champions or external advisors. A separate, future post will be dedicated to BIM Facilitation.

[6] This workflow is depicted at high-level and can be subdivided into different pools and additional lanes to suit project roles as appropriate.

[7] These steps can never be considered final or complete. They are intended to be continuously optimized to suit emerging technologies and knowledge/project management best practices

[8] For a discussion of the Relationships Between Project Complexity and Communication, refer to CIFE’s recent technical report - TR196, released January 2011 (PDF Link, 1.42MBs)

Episode 14: Industry Leadership vs. BIM Benefits

2010-09-04T16:38:54+10:00

Ever since the BIM wave struck the industry’s shores, there have been two intriguingly related discussions covering its drivers and its deliverables. The first discussion (or open question) is which industry stakeholder stands to benefit most from the wide deployment of object-based tools, procedures and protocols? Are facility owners the ones who will receive all the benefits[1]? Or is it the contractors/builders who will be reaping most of the rewards? What about architects, engineers and other designers; aren’t they the ones to really benefit from BIM?

The second discussion is which stakeholder is or should be leading [2] the industry-wide implementation drive? Should the architect lead by being the first to invest in relevant technologies and to develop collaboration workflows? Or, should the client drive construction innovation [3] through defined protocols or performance metrics? But isn’t it a fact that specialty sub-contractors (ducting specialists, steel detailers, etc…) were the first– for varied reasons – to jump onto the ‘elemental 3D’ train?

The jury is still out on both questions and there are a lot of facts mixed with an equal measure of theories (including conspiracy-flavoured ones) floating around. This post is not about analysing ‘who should benefit’, ‘how should the benefits be distributed’ or ‘who should lead’ but it is more about a set of personal observations over a period of many years [4].

These observations are NOT based on rigorous research and are thus exploratory until proven right or wrong through formal investigations [5]. However, it may be beneficial to expose these observations hoping to encourage others to provide their own. To that end, I’ve compiled my readings, thoughts [6] and practical experiences into the below image:

Figure 1. Industry BIM Leadership vs. Expected BIM Benefits v1.0

The above image explores the relationship between two variables: industry BIM LEADERSHIP and expected BIM BENEFITS. Industry stakeholders are shown clustered around their respective Project Lifecycle Phase [7]: Design [D], Construction [C] and Operation [O]. Until a more formal investigation is conducted to confirm (or refute) the above, it is intriguing to me how those who stand to benefit the most are not the same as those who are actually leading the pack.

[1] The benefits of using BIM concepts and technologies have been sufficiently documented by countless others; there’s no need to repeat them here. For a taste of these benefits, please check here.

[2] BIM leadership is a loose term describing actions taken (not words) including investment in BIM software, development of workflow protocols, engaging with others for the purposes of model-based collaboration, plus many other factors.

[3] Refer to Clients Driving Construction Innovation, a CRC-CI publication.

[4] For those concerned about context, the Visual Knowledge Model (VKM) provided above is based on informal yet informed ‘reflective learning’ (Derek, Svetlana, Janice, Frank, & Christophe, 2008) of the BIM domain within the Australian market from 2001-2010.

[5] The VKM may (or may not) be descriptive or predicative of other markets and durations.

[6] This VKM was first labelled BIM Innovation vs. BIM Benefits. Credit for some of the underlying concepts goes to Dr Guillermo Aranda-Mena (RMIT University) and from him to Jon Anderson (Hive Engineering).

[7] To understand Project Lifecycle Phases, please refer to BIM Episode 10.

The Five Components of BIM Performance Measurement

2010-05-18T01:39:49+10:00

As it complements the previous post quite nicely, BIM ThinkSpace's readers may be interested in reviewing my latest conference paper which has just been published. Please read its abstract below and - if sufficiently interested - proceed to downloading the full paper from here:

Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an expansive knowledge domain within the Design, Construction and Operation (DCO) industry. The voluminous possibilities attributed to BIM represent an array of challenges that can be met through a systematic research and delivery framework spawning a set of performance assessment and improvement metrics. This paper identifies five complementary components specifically developed to enable such assessment: [1] BIM Capability Stages representing transformational milestones along the implementation continuum [2] BIM Maturity Levels representing the quality, predictability and variability within BIM Stages, [3] BIM Competencies representing incremental progressions towards and improvements within BIM Stages, [4] Organisational Scales representing the diversity of markets, disciplines and company sizes and [5] Granularity Levels enabling highly-targeted yet flexible performance analyses ranging from informal self-assessment to high-detail, formal organisational audits. This paper explores these complementary components and positions them as a systematic method to understand BIM performance and to enable its assessment and improvement.

...

In my view, the key deliverable of this paper is the below Visual Knowledge Model (VKM) which summarizes the overall BIM performance assessment and reporting workflow:

Fig. 1 BIM Capability and Maturity Assessment and Reporting Workflow Diagram

The intention behind this paper is to introduce a 'conceptual tool' to assess Organisational BIM (without actually using this term) through a performance management lens. That is, the paper introduces a set of complementary components and a simple workflow (simple doesn't mean effortless) to assess BIM capability and maturity in a consistent, systematic and 'certifiable' way. This of course depends on several metrics (some are still being developed/tested by the industry) including the assessment of the 'product model' itself as a means for assessing the individual/organisation/team which generated it. I understand that this will need some elaboration and will try to provide it at a later stage (I'm still travelling at the moment)....Also, I would like to try something different this time: if I receive enough interest from readers, I'll invite those who email me or comment below - both supporters and skeptics - to an online presentation sometime in June 2010. Cut-off date for receiving interest is end of this month.

Episode 13: the BIM Maturity Index

2009-12-18T03:44:43+11:00

After introducing the basic differences between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity in Episode 11, and briefly discussing the many available and relevant maturity models in Episode 12, this post introduces a new specialized tool to measure BIM performance: the BIM Maturity Index (BIMMI).

As an additional reminder, BIM Capability is the basic ability to perform a task or deliver a BIM service/ product. BIM Capability Stages (or BIM Stages) define the minimum BIM requirements - the major milestones that need to be reached by a team or an organization as it implements BIM technologies and concepts (Refer to Episode 8 or Figure 1 below). Having a ‘measuring tape’ to establish BIM capability is important because it is a quick yet accurate assessment of an organization’s ability to deliver BIM services. For example, using Capability as a metric, we can safely establish that an organization at Stage 3 is able to deliver more BIM services to a client or project-partner than an organization at Stage 1 or 2:

Figure 1. The Three BIM Capability Stages

However, since BIM Capability Stages are established when minimum requirements are met; they cannot assess abilities (or lack of) beyond these minimum requirement. As a case in point, when using the Capability metric, two organizations using Tekla to primarily generate model-based steel details are said to be at BIM Stage 1. This is a useful bit of information because it sets these two organizations apart from all others still using CAD but tells us very little about their delivery speed, data richness or modelling quality. In fact, the two organizations may well be many experience-years apart without that being detected by the Capability scale. That’s why another metric (Maturity) is needed to assess and report on significant variations within service delivery and their underlying causes.

The term ‘BIM Maturity’ refers to the quality, repeatability and degrees of excellence of BIM services. In other words, BIM Maturity is the more advanced ability to excel in performing a task or delivering a BIM service/ product. Without measuring these qualities, there is no way of differentiating between ‘real’ abilities to deliver BIM services form blatant BIM wash.

To address this issue, the BIM Maturity Index[1] (BIMMI) has been developed by investigating and then integrating several maturity models from different industries[2]. BIMMI is similar to many Capability Maturity Models (CMM) discussed in Episode 11 but reflects the specifics of BIM technologies, processes and policies.

BIMMI has five distinct Maturity Levels: (a) Initial/ Ad-hoc, (b) Defined, (c) Managed, (d) Integrated and (e) Optimized. In general, the progression from lower to higher levels of BIM Maturity indicates (i) better control through minimizing variations between targets and actual results, (ii) better predictability and forecasting by lowering variability in competency, performance and costs and (iii) greater effectiveness in reaching defined goals and setting new more ambitious ones[3 & 4]. Figure 2 below visually summarizes the five Maturity Levels or “evolutionary plateaux"[5] followed by a brief description of each level:

Figure 2. The Five Maturity Levels (depicted at BIM Stage 1)

Maturity Level a (Initial or Ad-hoc): BIM implementation is characterized by the absence of an overall strategy and a significant shortage of defined processes and policies. BIM software tools are deployed in a non-systematic fashion and without adequate prior investigations and preparations. BIM adoption is partially achieved through the ‘heroic’ efforts of individual champions – a process that lacks the active and consistent support of middle and senior management. Collaboration capabilities (if achieved) are typically incompatible with those of project partners and occur with little or no pre-defined process guides, standards or interchange protocols. There is no formal resolution of stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities.

Maturity Level b (Defined): BIM implementation is driven by senior managers’ overall vision. Most processes and policies are well documented, process innovations are recognized and business opportunities arising from BIM are identified but not yet exploited. BIM heroism starts to fade in importance as competency increases; staff productivity is still unpredictable. Basic BIM guidelines are available including training manuals, workflow guides and BIM delivery standards. Training requirements are well-defined and are typically provided only when needed. Collaboration with project partners shows signs of mutual trust/respect among project participants and follows predefined process guides, standards and interchange protocols. Responsibilities are distributed and risks are mitigated through contractual means.

Maturity Level c (Managed): The vision to implement BIM is communicated and understood by most staff. BIM implementation strategy is coupled with detailed action plans and a monitoring regime. BIM is acknowledged as a series of technology, process and policy changes which need to be managed without hampering innovation. Business opportunities arising from BIM are acknowledged and used in marketing efforts. BIM roles are institutionalized and performance targets are achieved more consistently. Product/service specifications similar to AIA’s Model Progression Specifications[6] or BIPS’ information levels[7] are adopted. Modelling, 2D representation, quantification, specifications and analytical properties of 3D models are managed through detailed standards and quality plans. Collaboration responsibilities, risks and rewards are clear within temporary project alliances or longer-term partnerships.

Maturity Level d (Integrated): BIM implementation, its requirements and process/ product innovation are integrated into organizational, strategic, managerial and communicative channels. Business opportunities arising from BIM are part of team, organization or project-team’s competitive advantage and are used to attract and keep clients. Software selection and deployment follows strategic objectives, not just operational requirements. Modelling deliverables are well synchronized across projects and tightly integrated with business processes. Knowledge is integrated into organizational systems; stored knowledge is made accessible and easily retrievable[8]. BIM roles and competency targets are imbedded within the organization. Productivity is now consistent and predictable. BIM standards and performance benchmarks are incorporated into quality management and performance improvement systems. Collaboration includes downstream players and is characterized by the involvement of key participants during projects’ early lifecycle phases.

Maturity Level e (Optimized): Organizational and project stakeholders have internalized the BIM vision and are actively achieving it[9]. BIM implementation strategy and its effects on organizational models are continuously revisited and realigned with other strategies. If alterations to processes or policies are needed, they are proactively implemented. Innovative product/process solutions and business opportunities are sought-after and followed-through relentlessly. Selection/use of software tools is continuously revisited to enhance productivity and align with strategic objectives. Modelling deliverables are cyclically revised/ optimized to benefit from new software functionalities and available extensions. Optimization of integrated data, process and communication channels is relentless. Collaborative responsibilities, risks and rewards are continuously revisited and realigned. Contractual models are modified to achieve best practices and highest value for all stakeholders. Benchmarks are repetitively revisited to insure highest possible quality in processes, products and services.

...

In a future post, I’ll shed more light on the detailed BIM Competencies[10] that Capability and Maturity tools actually measure. For now, I’ll provide a sample BIM Performance Assessment summary generated using both metrics. Please note that - although the assessment below is based on my consultancy work - it has been significantly altered so that the ‘assessed’ organization cannot be identified. I’ve also removed most Performance Achievements (the useless positives), focused on Performance Challenges (the beneficial negatives) and added some explanatory notes [enclosed in brackets].

Sample Performance Assessment – Executive Summary

“...upon concluding a preliminary assessment of [organization name], the overall organizational BIM Performance has been tentatively established at 1a [Capability Stage 1, Maturity Level a] pending the provision of [specific artefacts]...

The [organization name] has been established at Capability Stage 1 [...because it] has actively employed [BIM software tool name] to generate [X number of projects] over the past [Y months/years] at a [utilization rate of Z%]...[other metrics]...none of these projects were collaborative with the exception of [pilot project name]...

The [organization name] has been established at Maturity Level a based on [a specific Maturity scoring system]....BIM Performance Achievements have been detailed in [document name] while BIM Performance Challenges have been detailed in [document name]...below is a summary of these Performance Challenges [grouped under the three main types of BIM Competencies]:

Technology: Usage of software applications is unmonitored and unregulated [different software tools are used although they generate very similar deliverables]. Software licence numbers are misaligned to staff requirements. 3D Models are mostly relied upon to only generate accurate 2D drawings [the data richness within the model is not being exploited]. Data usage and storage are not well defined. Hardware specifications are generally adequate but are non-uniform. Some computers fall well-below confirmed staff skills and their expected BIM deliverables [equipment replacement and upgrades are mostly treated as cost items - postponed whenever possible and committed-to only when unavoidable]. With respect to Networks, currently adopted solutions are not well integrated into the workflow [individuals and teams use whatever tools at hand to communicate and share files]. While there is an Intranet with a dedicated BIM section, the content is mostly static and not well suited to harvest, store and share knowledge [very few staff have administrative rights (or motivation) to upload information to the intranet].

Process: Senior leaders/managers have varied visions about BIM, and its implementation is conducted without a consistent overall strategy [as typical at this maturity level, BIM is treated as a technology stream with minimal consideration for its process and policy implications]. Change resistance is evident among staff [and possibly wide-spread amongst middle management]. The workplace environment is not recognized as a factor in increasing staff satisfaction/motivation [found to be not conducive to productivity – think of noise, glare and ergonomics]. While knowledge is recognized as an organizational asset, it is mainly shared between staff in an informal fashion [through oral tips, techniques and lessons learned].

Business opportunities arising from BIM are not well acknowledged. BIM objects [components, parts or families] are not consistently available in adequate numbers or quality. 3D model deliverables [as BIM products] suffer from too high, too low or inconsistent levels of detail. At the time of this assessment, it appears that more importance is given to [visual] quality of 2D representations than is given to 3D model accuracy [also, products and services offered by the organization represent a fraction of the capabilities inherent within the software tools employed]. There are no [overall] modelling quality checks or formal audit procedures.

BIM Projects are conducted using undocumented and thus inconsistent practices [there are no project initiation or closure protocols]. Staff competency levels are unmonitored by [and thus unknown to] management, BIM roles need clarification [roles are currently ambiguous] and team structures pre-date BIM. Staff training is not well structured and workflows are not well understood [in one instance, staff were not systematically inducted into BIM processes; in another, were confused about workflows and ‘who to go to’ for technical and procedural assistance].

Performance is unpredictable [management cannot predict BIM project duration or HR costs] and productivity appears to still depend on champions’ efforts within teams. A mentality of ‘shortcuts’ [working around the system] has been detected. Performance may be inconsistent as it is neither monitored nor reported in any systematic fashion [as typical at this Maturity Level, the organization had islands of concentrated BIM productivity separated by seas of BIM idleness/confusion].

Policy: The organization does not yet document its detailed BIM standards or workflows. There are no institutionalized quality controls for 3D models or 2D representations. The BIM training policies are not documented [current training protocols are out-dated] and auxiliary educational mediums are not provided to staff [training DVDs and the like]. Contractually, there is no BIM-specific risk identification or mitigation policy.”

The above assessment summary may not provide a glossy image of an aspiring BIM-enabled organization. However, such a list of challenges – pointed and revealing as it is - will help the organization’s management to identify where it needs to invest time and energy to enhance its BIM performance.

In summary, understanding Capability, Maturity and how to use both metrics to assess BIM Competencies can assist AECO stakeholders to determine their overall BIM performance levels. Once performance assessments are made, performance improvements will soon follow.

[1] Note that I opted to use the term BIM Maturity Index rather than Model to avoid confusion.

[2] Succar, B. (2009) Building Information Modelling Maturity Matrix. IN Underwood, J. & Isikdag, U. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Building Information Modelling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies, Information Science Reference, IGI Publishing.

[3] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4); pages 272-278

[4] McCormack, K., Ladeira, M. B., & Oliveira, M. P. V. d. (2008), Supply chain maturity and performance in Brazil. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4; pages 272-282

[5] SEI. (2008). People Capability Maturity Model - Version 2, Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Melon. Retrieved October 11, 2008, 2008, from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm-p/version2/index.html

[6] Refer to 2008 AIA California Council, Model Progression Specifications (http://bit.ly/AIAMPS 70KB PDF document)

[7] Refer to 2008 Danish Government’s BIPS, Digital Construction 3D Working Method http://bit.ly/BIPS3D 2.2MB PDF)

[8] Refer to the 4 levels in knowledge retention in Arif, M. et al. (2009), Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1); pages 92-108.

[9] Nightingale, D.J. and J.H. Mize (2002), Development of a Lean Enterprise Transformation Maturity Model. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 3(1): p. 15.

[10] A definition of BIM Competencies has been provided in Episode 12 (endnote 2). You can also use the blog’s custom search engine to find it.

Episode 12: BIM performance measurement

2009-09-27T21:27:49+10:00

After introducing the general differences between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity in Episode 11, I’ll briefly discuss some of the currently available and applicable maturity models[1]. The intention is to understand what other organisations and individuals have already achieved in this space and try to pin-point an appropriate performance-measurement model that can be adopted or modified to assess BIM competencies [2].

Why is this important? If BIM implementations by teams and organizations are to achieve the much touted increase in productivity, these implementations need to be measured, compared against some sort of industry benchmarks and – most importantly – independently certified. Without measurement, organizations offering design, construction or operations’ services have no basis on which to improve their processes and deliverables. Without benchmarks and certificates, clients aiming to employ these organizations have no consistent way of understanding their BIM competencies.

It is really a no-brainer that the AECO industry needs a specialized tool to assess BIM implementations in order to identify real BIM abilities from flagrant BIM wash. What requires real thought is [ONE] what BIM ‘metrics’ should this tool measure, [TWO] how to perform these measurements, and [THREE] how to certify measurement results so they can be trusted and depended upon for selecting project partners and/or improving BIM performance. This lengthy post will address a small part of the first question...

The initial step in identifying suitable metrics would be through searching for an existing and suitable performance measurement tool - rather than developing a new one from scratch - and then improve upon it. So, let’s have a quick look at some existing and applicable tools:

Applicable Maturity Models and Tools

A ‘maturity model’ is simply a set of performance improvement levels that can be achieved by an organisation or a project team. There are many maturity models which are relevant to our quest but I’ll only mention a few of them below:

1	COBIT, Control Objects for Information and related Technology – Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) and the IT Governance Institute (ITGI) - weblink.
2	CMMI, Capability Maturity Model Integration - Software Engineering Institute/ Carnegie Melon - weblink.
3	CSCMM, Construction Supply Chain Maturity Model - Vaidyanathan & Howell (2007) [3]
4	I-CMM, Interactive Capability Maturity Model developed as part of the National BIM Standard (NBIMS) Version 1 Part 1 - a project of the National Institute for Building Sciences (NIBS), buildingSMARTalliance™ - weblink.
5	Indiana University BIM Proficiency Matrix - weblink (MS Excel File)
6	Knowledge Retention Maturity Levels - Arif, Egbu, Alom and Khalfan (2009) [4]
7	LESAT, Lean Enterprise Self-Assessment Tool - Lean Aerospace Initiative (LAI) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - weblink
8	P3M3, Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model – Office of Government Commerce (UK) - weblink
9	P-CMM®, People Capability Maturity Model v2 – Software Engineering Institute / Carnegie Melon - weblink
10	(PM)², Project Management Process Maturity Model - Kwak & Ibbs (2002) [5]
11	SPICE, Standardised Process Improvement for Construction Enterprises - Research Centre for the Built and Human Environment, University of Salford – Hutchinson & Finnemore (1999) [6]
12	Supply Chain Management Process Maturity Model and Business Process Orientation (BPO) maturity model - Lockamy III & McCormack (2004) [7]
...	...

Table 1. Sample Maturity Models of relevance to BIM

All the above ‘maturity models’ are relevant to the construction industry (there are many others as well) but only two so far have claimed the ability to measure BIM-specific maturity: NBIMS’ I-CMM and Indiana University’s BIM Proficiency Matrix [8]. Since Indiana University’s effort is fairly new and is not yet well documented, I will only review the I-CMM tool below:

A quick focus on the NBIMS maturity effort

Let’s start with the definition: the U.S. National Building Information Model Standard™ (NBIMS) establishes “standard definitions for building information exchanges to support critical business contexts using standard semantics and ontologies...[to be]..implemented in software". NBIM Standard Version 1 – Part 1 proposes a Capability Maturity Model (CMM) for “users to evaluate their business practices along a continuum or spectrum of desired technical level functionality... [and to measure] the degree to which a building information model implements a mature BIM Standard”[9].

There are two versions of NBIMS’ CMM. The first is a static table identifying 11 Areas of Interest (AOI) measured against 10 Levels of increasing maturity (Fig. 1). The second is the Interactive Capability Maturity Model (I-CMM), a multi-tab Microsoft Excel® workbook based on the static table and employing a point score against each AOI.

Fig.1. NBIMS CMM Chart (download the MS Excel file from http://bit.ly/NBIMS)

NBIMS’ I-CMM is based on the concept of Minimum BIM; that is, a project needs to achieve a minimum total score of maturity for it to be considered ‘true BIM’. When it was first released, the NBIM Standard, version 1 stated that “one should obtain a minimum score of 20 [points -weighted average] in order to consider true BIM maturity”. It however stressed that the minimum score is not fixed but is “dependent on the date the [the I-CMM tool] is used”. The minimum score can thus change yearly or “as the rhetorical bar is raised and owners demand more from the models being delivered” [10]. In fact, in the newer version of the Excel tool (v1.9), the Minimum BIM score has since been changed to 30 and lately to 40 points

Limitations within the NBIMS I-CMM tool

NBIMS’ maturity model and tool are still in their early days of development and may yet change significantly. However, both the model and tool have significant limitations which I will briefly discuss below [11]:

The I-CMM tool has been designed to be used as an “internal tool...[to]...determine the level of maturity of an individual BIM project as measured against a set of weighted criteria agreed to be desirable in a Building Information Model” [12] [13]. I-CMM focuses primarily on measuring BIM information management and “should not be used as a benchmark for any other metrics” [14] including those related to architectural, engineering, construction and management. Also, I-CMM is not intended to be used as a “tool to compare BIMs or BIM implementations” [15].

In addition to the above structural limitations, the I-CMM’s scoring system can theoretically generate different results (certificates) for the same BIM project if the tool is employed by different users or at different times. This is highlighted in how NBIMS ‘allows’ those who use the tool to modify AOI weighting according to their specific requirements (see page 79 of NBIMS v1, part 1). This variability in AOI’s weightings coupled with a ‘date-sensitive’ Minimum BIM score limit the tool’s reliability as well as its usability as an industry-wide, market-independent measurement tool.

The need for a comprehensive tool

If one spends enough time and energy to analyse the many strength and shortfalls of available maturity models, s/he soon realizes what is missing: a specialized BIM Capability and Maturity tool that can be used internally by organisation and externally by independent assessors, can measure all key metrics related to BIM, has a consistent scoring system and is equally applicable across markets, disciplines and organisational sizes.

Of course, it is not realistic to expect organizations to independently develop their own measurement tools and impose them on all others. It is also impractical to ask industry players to rely on tools developed by other industries and are unsuitable for measuring BIM. Finally, it is not useful to adopt existing tools that – although developed for BIM but - can neither measure all BIM indicators nor are consistent in their measurement.

So what is the solution to all this? Can a maturity model and a measurement tool be developed to detect ‘BIM wash’, measure ‘BIMness’ and allow trustworthy certification of organizations which invest, develop and maintain their BIM competency?

...

[1] The term ‘model’ in this post denotes ‘knowledge models’ not ‘object-based models’ as typically associated with BIM.

[2] BIM Competencies are the generic abilities that teams and organizations need to acquire as they adopt and improve upon their BIM technologies, processes and policies. These competencies include technical (e.g. exchanging model data) and non-technical abilities (e.g. virtual team management) but all are important to move from Pre-BIM to IPD through a systematic and measurable approach. BIM Competencies are grouped in sets which are employed to establish either Capability or Maturity benchmarks. I’ll discuss BIM Competencies in a future post.

[3] Vaidyanathan, K., & Howell, G. (2007). Construction Supply Chain Maturity Model - Conceptual Framework, International Group For Lean Construction (IGLC-15). Michigan, USA.

[4] Arif, M., Egbu, C., Alom, O., & Khalfan, M. M. A. (2009). Measuring knowledge retention: a case study of a construction consultancy in the UAE. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 16(1), 92-108.

[5] Kwak, Y. H., & Ibbs, W. C. (2002). Project Management Process Maturity (PM)2 Model. ASCE, Journal of Management in Engineering, 18(3), 150-155.

[6] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.

[7] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.

[8] Indiana University BIM Proficiency Matrix includes 8 categories measured against 4 maturity/proficiency levels. The matrix appears to focus on the accuracy and richness of the digital model (as an end-product) and has little focus on the process of creating that model. More information is available at http://bit.ly/iuBIM. Thank you to Dr. Umit Isikdag (University of Salford - UK) for bringing this effort to my attention.

[9] NIST. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard - Version 1.0 - Part 1: Overview, principles and Methodologies: National Institute of Building Sciences (Page 75).

[10] Same as above – Page 72

[11] I will be reviewing the NBIMS CMM and I-CMM in more detail as part of my upcoming chapter ‘BIM Maturity Matrix’ in the Handbook of Research on Building Information Modeling and Construction Informatics: Concepts and Technologies (http://bit.ly/BIMhandbook).

[12] See AECbytes Viewpoint #33 (December 6, 2007), http://bit.ly/AECbytes1.

[13] Suermann, P. C., Issa, R. R. A., & McCuen, T. L. (2008). Validation of the U.S. National Building Information Modeling Standard Interactive Capability Maturity Model 12th International Conference on Computing In Civil and Building Engineering, October 16-18. Beijing, China.

[14] NIST. (2007). National Building Information Modeling Standard - Version 1.0 - Part 1: Overview, principles and Methodologies: National Institute of Building Sciences (Page 80).

[15] Same as endnote 10.

BIM Episode 11: The difference between BIM Capability and BIM Maturity

2009-06-03T23:44:03+10:00

The Story

Let’s start with a short story about two AEC organisations that – once upon a time – decided to adopt Building Information Modelling. Both organisations were mid-sized firms, operated within the same market and had the same mix of disciplines. Both were able to undertake large Design and Construct (Design and Build) projects of value exceeding $200m within the Health Sector. But this is where the similarities ended:

The Yellow Organisation decided to invest substantial energy and money to acquire object-based software (say Revit®, Tekla® or Vico®). This decision came after a group of enthusiastic and technology-savvy staff succeeded in convincing management to trial BIM. These ‘champions’ then organised and undertook the necessary training as recommended by their BIM software retailer and supplemented their learning by sieving through countless online forums. After a handful of months, a few setbacks and a couple of successful pilot projects, this group of individuals – now considered superheroes by some of their peers and computer-hugging fools by others – stood ready to implement what they’ve learned across the organisation. New BIM components where generated on-the-job and novel standards/processes started to slowly push out existing CAD practices. The management, now excited about the commercial possibilities of the new deliverables, instructed its marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Yellow’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.

The Blue Organisation invested substantial time and energy in investigating, developing and then gradually implementing an overall BIM strategy, tailored training plans, modelling standards and workflow protocols. Internal and external help were sought to communicate, train as well as educate staff [1] about BIM technologies and processes. The management team, after leading this implementation effort from day zero, succeeded in getting all staff enthusiastic and engaged in developing BIM products and processes. They continuously conducted internal assessments to ensure that their BIM productivity is sufficiently stable and that they can predictably and uniformly deliver high-quality models and drawings. Convinced that BIM is the only efficient way to deliver services, they allowed their marketing people to inject BIM images and labels into Blue’s corporate website and to start informing potential clients about their new abilities.

End of short story...

Now, from an onlooker’s point of view (a client for example) both organisations appear equally qualified, just as able to deliver the promise of BIM....But they’re not equally qualified – far from it. These two organisations demonstrate a significant problem in identifying the difference between BIM Capability - the ability to generate BIM deliverables and services, from BIM Maturity - the extent, depth, quality, predictability and repeatability of these BIM deliverables and services.

Let’s have another look at the above organisations using two different lenses:

#	Yellow Organisation	Blue Organisation
1	Uses Object-based software tools	Also uses Object-based software tools
2	Can collaborate internally using multi-disciplinary object-based models	Same as left...
3	Can deliver at least one large BIM project of construction value exceeding $200m	Same as left...
4	Has experience in the Health Sector	Same as left...
5	...	...
*Quick Conclusion:* the Yellow and Blue organisation have very similar BIM Capability

Table 1. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Capability lens

#	Yellow Organisation	Blue Organisation
1	Bottom-Up initial BIM approach	Top-Down initial BIM approach
2	Champion-lead implementation	Management-lead implementation
3	No evidence of overall BIM strategy	Overall Strategy preceded implementation
4	No evidence of internal communication about BIM implementation efforts	There is evidence of internal communication as part of the BIM implementation effort
5	Standards were learned, developed and extended on the go	Standards and workflows where readied prior to wide implementation
6	Evidence of change-resistance (cynicism)	Evidence of wide-spread enthusiasm
7	No evidence of skill/knowledge assessment	Evidence of skill/knowledge assessment
8	....	....
*Quick Conclusion:* the Blue organisation has higher BIM Maturity than the Yellow one (this conclusion will be explained in more detail in the next one or two blog posts)

Table 2. Comparing the two organisations using a BIM Maturity lens

Capability is thus a notion quite different to Maturity...I'll quickly expand on this a bit more by re-discussing BIM Capability before directly jumping into the more intricate topic of BIM Maturity:

BIM Capability, a reminder

As explored in Episode 8, three ‘capability’ Stages are needed to pass from pre-BIM status to IPD. These Stages represent revolutionary changes (as opposed to evolutionary mutations) and are characterised by reaching a milestone or achieving minimum proficiency. For example, an organisation is considered to have reached BIM Capability Stage 1 by the relative easiness of deploying an object-based software. BIM Capability Stage 2 is reached when an organisation undertakes model-based multi-disciplinary collaboration. Finally, BIM Capability Stage 3 is reached when an organisation undertakes network-based, interdisciplinary model integration. In essence, the three BIM Stages are useful in identifying the minimum abilities of organisations and project teams but are not that useful in analysing or comparing how well they model, collaborate or integrate their deliverables.

Organisation which are not aware of the above capability progression usually refer to themselves as generically ‘BIM able’ as soon as they deploy a few copies of ArchiCAD, Tekla or Bentley Architecture. So how can individuals, organisational teams, organisations and project teams rate their own performance or that of their potential partners or competitors? How can clients filter out BIM wash from BIM reality? They need – we all need – some kind of ‘tool’ that can be applied to define, measure and hopefully improve these BIM abilities [2].

BIM Maturity

The concept of Maturity is not new and have existed for some time in many other industries but the most potent representation of this concept came from the software industry’s Capability Maturity Model. CMM is actually a ‘process improvement framework’ originally intended as a tool to evaluate the ability of government contractors to perform a software project. It was developed in the late 80s for the benefit of the US Department of Defence [3]. It’s successor, the more comprehensive Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI), continues to be developed and extended by the Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

Capability Maturity Models identify a set of standardised process improvement levels (or maturity levels) which allow implementers to achieve significant business benefits. Research into CMM has already identified the correlation between process maturity and business performance [4]. The use of maturity models is thought to lead to increased productivity and Return On Investment (ROI) as well as reduced costs and post-delivery defects [5]&[6].

The ‘original’ CMM is specific to the software industry and is not applicable to construction as it does not address supply chain issues and its maturity levels do not account for the different phases of a project lifecycle [7]. Although there are a few – some are extensive efforts - which focus on the construction industry, there is no comprehensive model that can be applied to BIM, its implementation stages, players, deliverables or its effect on project lifecycle phases.

I’ll leave it here now....In the next couple of Episodes, I’ll discuss currently available and applicable Maturity Models (including the one by NBIMS) followed by a new BIM Maturity Index which I think you’ll find interesting...

[1] “Education is about learning for oneself, and training is about learning for the sake of someone else” as beautifully summarised by Dr. Megan Squire after analysing this Monthly Review article.

[2] The full quality axiom dictates that "what cannot be defined, cannot be measured; what cannot be measured cannot be improved, and what cannot be improved will eventually deteriorate” (Dr. Daniel Meade, bettermanagement.com)

[3] Hutchinson, A., & Finnemore, M. (1999). Standardized process improvement for construction enterprises. Total Quality Management, 10, 576-583.

[4] Lockamy III, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(4), 272-278.

[5] Jaco, R. (2004). Developing an IS/ICT management capability maturity framework, Proceedings of the 2004 annual research conference of the South African institute of computer scientists and information technologists on IT research in developing countries. Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa: South African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists.

[6] Paulk, M. C., Weber, C. V., Garcia, S. M., Chrissis, M. B., & Bush, M. (1993). Key Practices of the Capability Maturity Model - Version 1.1 (Technical Report): Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University.

[7] Sarshar, M., Haigh, R., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D., et al. (2000). SPICE: a business process diagnostics tool for construction projects. Engineering Construction & Architectural Management, 7(3), 241-250.

The BIM Framework: an Academic Perspective

2009-03-19T10:44:06+11:00

Many of ThinkSpace’s readers are academically-oriented and may be interested to know that the BIM Framework has now been published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Automation in Construction (Volume 18, Issue 3). The Framework is the basis of most BIM episodes published so far and has allowed the generation of many BIM implementation and evaluation tools (more about that in future posts). Below is the paper’s abstract in both textual and visual forms:

Textual Abstract: “Building Information Modelling (BIM) is an expansive knowledge domain within the Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry. To allow a systematic investigation of BIM's divergent fields, its knowledge components must be defined and expanding boundaries delineated. This paper explores some of the publicly available international guidelines and introduces the BIM Framework, a research and delivery foundation for industry stakeholders. This is a ‘scene-setting’ paper identifying many conceptual parts (fields, stages, steps and lenses), providing examples of their application and listing some of the Framework's deliverables. This paper also identifies and deploys visual knowledge models and a specialised ontology to represent domain concepts and their relations”.

Visual Abstract: visualisations reduce complexity; please click on the image below to open a higher-resolution image:

I regret that I cannot share the actual paper with the blog’s subscribers due to copyright restrictions. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need further information or clarifications.

Technorati Tags: BIM,Research,Academic,Journal,Framework,Stages,Steps,Lenses,Project Lifecycle Phases,Data Flows,Modelling,Collaboration,Integration,IPD,Ontology,Visualisation,Visual Models

Effects of BIM On Project Lifecycle Phases

2008-11-24T21:57:25+11:00

The BIM Episodes: Episode 10

A construction project passes through multiple phases from inception to demolition. These phases are typically referred to as Project Lifecycle Phases (PLPs) and include pre-construction activities like programming, cost planning as well as post-construction activities like occupancy and facility maintenance. Lifecycle phases can be delineated in a few ways but I have personally adopted a simplified subdivision as follows:

Construction projects pass through three major lifecycle phases: Design [D], Construction [C] and Operations [O]. These phases are also subdivided into sub-phases (Table 1) which are in turn further subdivided into activities, sub-activities and tasks.

Design Phase	Construction Phase	Operations Phase
D1: conceptualisation, programming and cost planning	C1: construction planning and construction detailing	O1: occupancy and operations
D2: architectural, structural and systems design	C2: construction, manufacturing and procurement	O2: asset management and facility maintenance
D3: analysis, detailing, coordination and specification	C3: commissioning, as-built and handover	O3: decommissioning and major re-programming

Table 1: Project Lifecycle Phases and sub-Phases

As an example of further subdivision, the Design phase [D] includes Architectural, Structural and Systems Design sub-phase [D1], which includes an Architectural Design activity [D1.1], which includes the Conceptualisation sub-activity [D1.1a] which lastly includes a 3D Modelling task [D1.1a.01]. The usefulness of these subdivisions will not be too evident in this blog post but just remember that BIM implementations can and will affect construction projects at Phase, Task and everything in between. For now we’ll just focus on the effects of BIM on Phases and I’ll discuss the effects of BIM on smaller lifecycle subdivisions in later posts.

BIM Stage 1: Object-Based Modelling

As a reminder, BIM implementation is initiated through the deployment of an ‘object-based 3D parametric software tool’ similar to ArchiCAD®, Revit®, Digital Project® and Tekla®. At Stage 1, users generate single-disciplinary models within either design [D], construction [C] or operation [O] – the three Project Lifecycle Phases. These models - like architectural design models [D] and duct fabrication models [C] - are primarily used to automate the generation and coordination of 2D documentation and 3D visualisations. Other deliverables of Stage 1 models include basic data exports (ex: door schedules, concrete quantities, FFE costs,...) and light-weight 3D models (ex: 3D DWF, 3D PDF, NWD, etc...) which have no modifiable parametric attributes. However, the ‘semantic’ nature of object-based models and their ‘hunger’ for early and detailed resolution of design and construction matters encourage ‘fast-tracking’ of Project Lifecycle Phases (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 1 – linear model

Figure 1 above depicts how object-based modelling encourages fast-tracking: when a project is still executed in a phased manner yet design and construction activities are overlapped to save time [2]. That is, after achieving maturity within Stage 1 implementations, BIM players will acknowledge the benefits of engaging other design and construction players with similar modelling capabilities. Such acknowledgement and subsequent action will lead them to BIM Stage 2, model-based collaboration.

BIM Stage 2: Model-Based Collaboration

Having developed single-disciplinary modelling expertise through Stage 1 implementations, Stage 2 players actively collaborate with other disciplinary players. This may occur in many technological ways according to each player’s selection of BIM software tools.

Model-based collaboration can occur within one or between two Project Lifecycle Phases. Examples of this include the Design-Design interchange of architectural and structural models [DD], the Design-Construction interchange of structural and steel models [DC] and the Design-Operations interchange of architectural and facility maintenance models [DO]. Stage 2 maturity also alters the granularity of modelling performed at each lifecycle phase as higher-detail construction models move forward and replace (partially or fully) lower-detail design models (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 2 – linear model

Figure 2 above depicts how model-based collaboration is a factor in instigating fast-tracking and changing relative modelling intensity within each lifecycle phase. The overlap depicted is driven by construction players increasingly providing design-related services as part of their Stage 2 offerings and design players increasingly adding construction and procurement information into their design models. Also, changes in semantic richness across lifecycle phases occur as detailed construction and fabrication models (ex: steel detailing and duct fabrication models) partially replace the more generic upstream structural and mechanical design models.

BIM Stage 3: Network-Based Integration

In this stage semantically-rich integrated models are created, shared and maintained collaboratively across Project Lifecycle Phases. This integration can be achieved through model server technologies (using proprietary, open or non-proprietary formats), single / integrated / distributed / federated databases [1,3] and/or SaaS (Software as a Service) solutions [4]. From a process perspective, synchronous interchange of model and document-based data cause project lifecycle phases to overlap extensively forming a phase-less process (Fig.3).

Fig. 3. Project Lifecycle Phases at BIM Stage 3 – linear model

Figure 3 above depicts how network-based integration causes ‘concurrent construction’: a term used when “all project activities are integrated and all aspects of design, construction, and operation are concurrently planned to maximize the value of objective functions while optimising constructability, operability and safety” [2].

In summary, object-based modelling will first blur the lines separating different project lifecycle phases. As model-based collaboration takes hold, lifecycle players start moving into each other’s territory. Finally, as network-based integration becomes the norm, design, construction and operations overlap extensively if not totally.

Note on terms used within Figures:

A BIM data exchange is when a BIM player exports or imports data that is neither structured nor computable. A typical example of data exchange is the export of 2D CAD drawings out of 3D object-based models resulting in significant loss of geometric and semantic data.
A BIM data interchange (or interoperable exchange) is when a BIM player exports and imports data that is structured and computable by another application. Interchanges assume ‘adequate interoperability’ between the sender and receiver systems.

References

[1] Bentley, Does the Building Industry Really Need to Start Over - A Response from Bentley to Autodesk's BIM-Revit Proposal for the Future, http://www.laiserin.com/features/bim/bentley_bim_whitepaper.pdf, last accessed July 12, 2008

[2] A. Jaafari, Concurrent Construction and Life Cycle Project Management, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 123 (4) (1997) 427-436.

[3] J. Liaserin, Building Information Modeling - The Great Debate, http://www.laiserin.com/features/bim/index.php, last accessed July 12, 2008

[4] P. Wilkinson, SaaS-based BIM, http://www.extranetevolution.com/extranet_evolution/2008/04/saas-based-bim.html, last accessed July 12, 2008

The BIM Episodes: Episode 9

2008-06-04T22:49:10+10:00

EPISODE 9: BIM STEPS

This post is about BIM Steps, those micro changes needed to implement Building Information Modelling within an organisation and then - by osmosis - throughout the whole industry. But before we introduce BIM Steps and in response to feedback received, I’ll partially revisit the BIM Stages topic (Episode 8) in an effort to invite more discussion.

BIM Adoption: Stages and Steps

The adoption of BIM by an organisation will not happen unintentionally and definitely not in a single giant leap. In fact, it will be deployed through intentional decisions passing through major milestones referred to as BIM Stages. These stages – if well defined - are very useful to understand BIM concepts and visions but are - on their own - not usable in implementation. Further subdivisions are needed: smaller incremental changes that each organisation can make to reach each major Stage, mature within it and then attempt to reach another. These ‘feetstones’ or micro objectives are called BIM Steps. The difference between BIM Stages and Steps is that stages are radical or transformational changes while steps are incremental/evolutionary changes or maturity levels.

But why do we need to define stages to start with?

Need for BIM Stages

BIM Stages - as introduced in BIM ThinkSpace Episode 8 - are part of a ‘BIM Framework’ and an underlying ‘BIM Theory’. I will not burden the blog readers with these but I want to highlight that Stage numbers, their definitions and underlying structures are based on ‘something’ more elaborate than a personal experience. The importance of BIM Stages lies in their observed ability to facilitate BIM deployment within organisations and – more generally - allow different industry stakeholders to:

Agree on a common vision (any defined vision can be agreed upon; undefined visions cannot...)
Generate a simplified implementation roadmap for organisations to follow
Simplify BIM terminology around fewer headings
Identify incremental and achievable steps between major stages
Provide benchmarks for business improvement
Allow organisations to assess themselves and others

To generate the above optimistic deliverables, BIM Stages have been structured using five relentless rules – stages must be:

Well defined (non-overlapping): BIM Stages should be unambiguous and non-contradictory. For example, an implementation step cannot exist in two Stages at the same time.
Generically Applicable: BIM Stages should apply equally to all disciplines, across all project lifecycle phases (Design, Construction and Operations) and throughout the industry’s hierarchy. So, whether you’re an owner, architect, engineer, contractor, sub-contractor or facility manager – BIM Stages should apply equally to you. They should also apply equally to teams, organisations and the whole Architecture, Engineering, Construction and Operations (AECO) industry.
Revolutionary (non-evolutionary): BIM Stages are transformational or radical changes NOT incremental changes, usage types or maturity levels.
Linear: BIM Stages are logical progressions and cannot be skipped.
Cumulative: deliverables of one BIM Stage can be carried forward to the next Stage

Three BIM Stages: a reminder

As a reminder (please read Episode 8 before continuing), BIM implementation or BIM maturity levels can be subdivided into three consecutive stages:

BIM Stage 1: object-based modelling or MODELLING for short
BIM Stage 2: model-based collaboration or just COLLABORATION
BIM Stage 3: network-based integration or just INTEGRATION

Figure 1: BIM Stages - definitions

Which finally brings us back to BIM Steps, the main topic of this post...

BIM Steps: an introduction

The distance separating each of the above BIM Stages is quite large judging by the amount of changes expected at both organisational and industry levels. However, the passage from Pre-BIM to BIM Stage 1 and through each of the three stages is populated by many smaller steps that can be identified and thus fulfilled by willing organisations. These steps are either pre-empt a stage or are maturity levels within each of the stages.

Different step sets

The collection of steps that each organisation needs to fulfil to reach or mature within a BIM Stage across the continuum from pre-BIM to Integrated Project Delivery is driven by different perquisites for, challenges within and deliverables of each stage. It is therefore important to identify these different step sets:

A steps from pre-BIM Status (fixed starting point) leading to BIM Stage 1
B steps from BIM Stage 1 maturing towards BIM Stage 2
C steps from BIM Stage 2 maturing towards BIM Stage 3
D steps are maturity levels within Stage 3 leading to Integrated Project Delivery – a continuously evolving target!

Figure 2: BIM Stages – step sets

Different Step types

Although many attributes of BIM innovation appear technological in nature, most changes demanded by its implementation do in fact relate to processes and policies (Episode 7). As an example, before achieving ‘database integration’ - an attribute of BIM Stage 3 - certain standards, procedures and data channels need to be available. Therefore, in order to generate adequate guides to fulfil implementation steps, it is important to differentiate between these challenges as each demands a different approach.

There are three types of steps leading to or transitioning between BIM stages:

Technology Steps

Technology Steps are milestones in software, hardware and networks. For example, the availability of a BIM tool allows the migration from drafting-based to object-based workflow (BIM Stage 1)

Process Steps

Process Steps are Leadership, Infrastructure, Human Resources and Products/Services. For example, collaboration procedures and database-sharing skills are necessary to allow model-based collaboration (BIM Stage 2).

Policy Steps

Policy Steps are contractual, regulatory and preparatory changes. For example, alliance-based and risk-sharing contractual agreements are pre-requisites to achieving integrated practices (BIM Stage 3).

Figure 3: BIM Stages – step sets

Final Note

This staged and stepped approach to BIM implementation will benefit organisations as it allows them to optimise their efforts and prioritise their actions. Each BIM Stage will act as (1) a place to start from, (2) a goal to aspire to or (3) a milestone along the way to Integrated Project Delivery (or whatever the industry considers to be its ultimate BIM-driven goal). The identification of smaller steps between stages will allow organisations to plan their next move, select their own change-pace and thus reach their aspired maturity levels with much less anguish, cost and frustration...

For Feedback, please comment below or click here...Thank you